Fake News Banned

gfm7175 said:
How is banning certain media outlets from the Brady Room "taking control of them"? They are still owned and operated by the same people whether they are allowed into the Brady Room or not.
Click to expand...
I NEVER said he was taking control of any news out lets, he is trying to control what media puts out as news and info.
Not allowing every news out let that wants to cover what goes on at the WH into his meetings is controlling them.
 
According to the news this morning the media outlets that have been band from the WH are filing a law suit under their first Amendment rights.
We will have to see where this goes.
 
gfm7175 said:
You just said it in your prior comment, and you say it again below.

And here you said it again. You are contradicting yourself.

No, it's not.
Click to expand...
He is NOT taking control of the NEWS outlets I never said he was . He is taking control of the news they are getting.
 
Tbird19482 said:
According to the news this morning the media outlets that have been band from the WH are filing a law suit under their first Amendment rights. We will have to see where this goes.
Click to expand...

Old news, and predictable.

Chief Pump-um-gas on the res could've told you that last week, probably.
 
I don't recall any lefties whining when reporter Simon Ateba's press pass was revoked.


In 2023 the White House changed hard-pass rules (requiring a congressional gallery or Supreme Court credential). Hundreds of passes were deactivated, including Simon Ateba’s. Ateba sued.


District court (Judge John D. Bates, D.D.C., No. 1:23-cv-02321)


  • September 6, 2023: Denied Ateba’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found he had not shown irreparable harm because he could still enter with a day pass.
  • December 7, 2023: Granted summary judgment to the government on the First Amendment claim and the APA claim. Denied Ateba’s cross-motion. Dismissed the remaining count without prejudice. The court held that even if Ateba had a First Amendment injury from losing preferred access, the May 2023 policy (requiring a congressional gallery or Supreme Court credential) was reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.

D.C. Circuit (No. 24-5004, Ateba v. Leavitt)


  • Argued October 15, 2024.
  • Affirmed April 8, 2025. The panel (Wilkins, Pan, Rogers) held the press area is a nonpublic forum and the hard-pass policy is both reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. Reliance on outside gallery credentialing did not give “unbridled discretion.”
  • Rehearing denied June 9, 2025. Mandate issued June 17, 2025.

Ateba filed a petition for certiorari (No. 25-338). As of the records used here, the Supreme Court had not granted review.



But that was Different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top